Essays academic service


An overview of the immorality of the abortions in the united states

That is to say, we want to know about the morality of uncoerced, human abortion—so for our purposes abortions are voluntary, deliberate removal of a human fetus. Warren considers the following anti-abortion argument: This includes not only functioning children and adults, but also includes fetuses even very early fetuses and living human bodies without functioning brains e.

The moral community is the set of beings with full moral rights, and consists of all and only persons. Either the argument assumes that it is wrong to kill something merely because it is homo sapien, or the argument assumes that a fetus is a member of the moral community. Both of these claims are contentious and would require further argument. Warren next considers whether genetic humanity is sufficient for moral humanity. Reasoning the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems ; 3.

Self-motivated activity activity which is relatively independent of genetic or direct external control. The capacity to communicate, messages of with an indefinite number of possible contents on indefinitely many possible topics. The presence of self-concepts and self-awareness.

A space explorer is captured by aliens who are going to make a thousand clones of him unless he escapes. Does he have an obligation to stay?

Support for Abortion Slips

No, says Warren, even if the cloning is done quickly and does not harm him. Not even if the clones have already started to grow and will die if he escapes.

  1. For example, suppose Smith lives in a county where pornography is illegal. To unplug you would be to kill him.
  2. He could easily move to a different county, but he chooses not to. If I have a prima facie reason to believe something, then I should presume it is true unless I have other evidence to the contrary that overrides the prima facie reason.
  3. Can support abortion only if having desires is a necessary condition for having the right not to be killed. The paperback of the hand of god.
  4. A chinese record documents the number of royal concubines who had abortions in china quackery and immorality in the united states see history of abortion. This much is easy to see, since most of us agree that it is not wrong to kill in self-defense.

Objections to Warren If killing fetuses is permissible because they are not full-fledged members of the moral community, then, by the same standard, killing newborns would be permissible as well. Moreover, killing any non-human animal would also be permissible. But this is not the case.

An overview of the immorality of the abortions in the united states

It is certainly wrong to kill such beings just for the sake of convenience, or financial profit, or sport. Take the example of a premature birth. But it is no closer to being a person than a six-month fetus that happened to stay in the womb.

So, to be consistent, Warren must either say that killing the premature infant is permissible, or that aborting the six-month fetus is not. Instead, he proposes that having interests is what matters, and sentience the capacity to feel pain is both necessary and sufficient for having interests. At what stage of development is a fetus capable of experiencing pain?

Abortion and the public opinion polls. 1. Morality and legality.

Somewhere between 5 and 6 months, it is now believed. If I have a prima facie reason to believe something, then I should presume it is true unless I have other evidence to the contrary that overrides the prima facie reason. If a type of action is prima facie wrong, what this means is that the type of action is wrong in most cases, with exceptions in special circumstances that would justify the action. On the other hand, the anti-abortionist wants to find a moral principle so broad that even fetuses at an early stage will fall under it.

These principles are often too broad. The pro-choicer will deny that fetuses are human beings in the moral sense. There seems to be no non-question-begging way in which either side can establish a definition of moral personhood that suits their interests. An analysis of the wrongness of killing. Points in favor of the analysis according to Marquis: It makes sense that killing is fundamentally wrong for the same reason that death is bad. Whether it is wrong depends on the expected value of the future of the patient.

What makes killing wrong is that it prevents us from fulfilling our desires. Can support abortion only if having desires is a necessary condition for having the right not to be killed. Worse, it puts the cart before the horse: What makes killing wrong is the discontinuation of a life of value.

Killing a person may be wrong because a person has a future of value. The category that is morally central to this analysis is the category of having a valuable future like ours; it is not the category of personhood. Is there a problem in determining which things can be said to have a future?

It is morally okay not to inject the kittens. There is no morally relevant distinction between actions and omissions The Moral Symmetry Principle, a. Therefore, it is okay to neutralize the development of a PCP once you have injected the kitten e. CPs have the same rights as HSPs. Therefore, it is okay to neutralize the development of a PHSP—abortion is morally permissible. Notice that PCPs are not merely potential persons, they are also things with futures of value.

She then tries to show that, even given that the fetus has a right to life, it does not follow that abortion is morally impermissible. For the sake of argument, Thomson assumes that 1 and 2 are true.

She then argues that 4 does not follow from 3. This much is easy to see, since most of us agree that it is not wrong to kill in self-defense. But Thomson argues that the gap between 3 and 4 is much wider than this. Along these lines, one suggestion is that a mother has a right to decide what happens in and to her body, and that this might outweigh the fetuses right to life.

Instead, she argues that the right to life has been misunderstood. Once it is understood correctly, it will be seen that 4 does not follow from 3. Thomson proposes a thought experiment: A famous unconscious violinist.

He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help.

  • In fact, no one is even required to be a Minimally Decent Samaritan;
  • In fact, no one is even required to be a Minimally Decent Samaritan;
  • If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and the burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, 'Ah, now he can stay, she's given him the right to the use of her house, for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle;
  • If I have a prima facie reason to believe something, then I should presume it is true unless I have other evidence to the contrary that overrides the prima facie reason;
  • Notice that PCPs are not merely potential persons, they are also things with futures of value.

They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, 'Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? What if the director of the hospital says.

All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him. This means that the argument is invalid; the conclusion 4 does not follow from the premises. So what does the right to life consist in? Sometimes the bare minimum is something you have no right to. Sometimes you can be killed by being deprived of something you have no right to.

Sex using birth control? You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best an overview of the immorality of the abortions in the united states can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house?

Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Ordinary consensual sex without contraception? If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and the burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, 'Ah, now he can stay, she's given him the right to the use of her house, for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.

A fetus is innocent, not a burglar trying to do you harm. But, Thomson would say, this makes no difference: I have the right to eject an innocent person from my home, if that person falls through my window.

At this point it may be objected: It is more like having someone over because you invited them into your home… Thomson recognizes that not all moral obligations stem from rights.

For example, if a child finds a chocolate bar, then his sister has no right to it, but decency requires that he share it with her anyway. When is it indecent? A woman wants to abort at seven months so that she can go to Europe.

  • If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and the burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, 'Ah, now he can stay, she's given him the right to the use of her house, for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle;
  • There is no morally relevant distinction between actions and omissions The Moral Symmetry Principle, a;
  • Whether it is wrong depends on the expected value of the future of the patient.

In fact, no one is even required to be a Minimally Decent Samaritan. Abortion is permissible in many cases, but this does not mean we have the right to secure the death of the fetus.

Were it possible to remove a fetus without killing it, then it must not be killed.

Religious and Moral Influence on the Debate

Pro-choice lobbies are concerned about laws and policies that may implicitly recognize the fetus as a person e.

Would such laws and policies be cause for concern for Thomson? What about a personhood theory? Under what conditions does the fetus have the consent of the mother?

I am fully aware of what this will involve. This is what we do when we sign a contract.